Reconciliation in Segregated Spaces

A realistic approach to the challenges of reconciling work in our cities.

Every church has equal opportunity, means, and goals in the work of reconciliation.

Or so I used to think.

Many books and messages on reconciliation, or racial reconciliation, bear the same characteristics.^[1] Scripture demands a reconciliation between believers that has been accomplished for us in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:18-20, Colossians 1:20, etc.). Local churches must live out this reconciliation through repentance, new relationships, and a willingness to sacrifice preferences for others. Occasionally, there is a call to justice as a prerequisite or simultaneous work.

Such messages are relatively sound and rooted in the plain demands of Scripture. However, most of these calls to reconciliation remain so generalized that they give little help to the real challenges facing individual congregations in their context. The notion is often given that if a church would do a short sermon series on racism and justice, read a book on reconciliation, and sing a few new worship songs, then the congregation would become diverse because they have accomplished “reconciliation.” These ideas feel empowering for a time, especially in predominantly White contexts where Christians try to act on a few new ideas with the hope that small changes will make a big difference.

That is until reality sets in, and people discover that reconciling work is hard and requires more than a few new songs and a book study. As conflict and discouragement emerge, congregations stall, waiting for new ideas or giving up the work entirely.

When our family moved from the suburbs of Washington D.C. to the inner city of Indianapolis three years ago, I was under the impression that diverse congregations and reconciling work would be more of the norm in the city than in our suburban context. I have found the opposite to be true. Without attending to the work of diversity or reconciliation at all, many congregations in our suburban context were still likely to have a moderate degree of diversity with minimal effort. In Indianapolis, many predominantly White churches actively seek racial diversity and reconciliation in their preaching and ministries yet remain predominantly White. Why?

Could the contexts themselves provide two very different starting points for these congregations? I believe so. The suburban communities of Washington, D.C., are not only some of the more diverse counties in the country but also among the most integrated. A diverse middle class means many companies, schools, and neighborhoods are relatively diverse and integrated on their own. In contrast, Indianapolis remains one of the most segregated cities in the country. Its neighborhoods, schools, and businesses often reflect this segregation.

Churches in each context have two very different starting points for reconciling efforts. A church in one city will be much closer to the goal of reconciliation than the other, not because of anything they did but simply because of the social systems in which they participate. Comparing these two churches as if they have the same opportunity and goals in reconciliation is dishonest, even dangerous.

The more a city is segregated, the more challenging the work of reconciliation in churches becomes. Too often, the work of reconciliation is reduced to problems within churches and church systems. While I do not want to minimize blame on churches, denominations, and theological traditions for perpetuating racism and injustice, churches do not exist in a vacuum. The social systems in which we participate also share in the blame and contribute to the challenges we face.

At least four pressures drive segregation in our cities: historical injustices, diseased social and theological narratives, the movement of people groups, and social systems. Any church that wants to pursue reconciliation will at least need to consider how these pressures reveal themselves in their context. Following a brief explanation of these pressures, I conclude with several next steps to carry the conversation and work of reconciliation forward.

Four Pressures Driving Segregation in Our Cities

Historical Injustices

By now, I hope the many interwoven injustices of our country’s history are familiar to most readers. Many of our cities remain highly segregated as a result of decades of unjust policies and actions that were purposed to create and maintain segregation, both along racial and economic lines. Redlining, unjust city planning and school zoning, the war on drugs, and several other injustices have not only made segregation a lasting reality but also have present consequences on the health of our communities.

Richard Rothstein brings this to bear in his work on residential segregation when he concludes:

Many of our serious national problems either originate with residential segregation or have become intractable because of it. We have greater political and social conflict because we must add unfamiliarity with fellow citizens of different racial backgrounds to the challenges we confront in resolving legitimate disagreements about public issues. Racial polarization stemming from our separateness has corrupted our politics, permitting leaders who ignore the interests of white working-class voters to mobilize them with racial appeals.^[2]

Many of these historic injustices were present here in Indianapolis, and our city remains segregated as a result. Like many other cities, major highways and economic redevelopment targeted Black communities, destroying businesses, neighborhoods, and cultures. Redlining left neighborhoods poor and disenfranchised. The city intentionally dumped its waste in Black neighborhoods, leaving their grounds poisoned and the health of their residents compromised.

These injustices were so severe in our city that Indianapolis remains one of the most segregated cities in the country. According to the dissimilarity index, which measures the integration of racial groups and their access to services in a city, Indianapolis is still 75% segregated. The starting point for reconciling work in a city like Indianapolis is much different than in a city like San Diego, which is about 58% segregated.^[3]

Diseased Narratives

In 1925, Vera Morgan, the librarian of the Haughville library, lamented the lack of interest and information available on the immigrant families of her community. She referenced an interview with a known writer who referred to Indianapolis “as the typical American city, which had practically no foreign population.” This writer went on to say that if ever an immigrant name was discovered in the newspapers of Indianapolis, “we pass over it to more agreeable news.” However, when pressed, this writer confessed residents would have to admit that “there are a few hunkies^[4] out in Haughville but we don’t know anything about them."^[5]

Inner city neighborhoods have been subjected to diseased social and theological narratives since their origination. These broader narratives have shaped cities for generations. Racist narratives fueled redlining practices to maintain segregation. When those no longer worked, wealthy and middle-class Whites in cities fled to the suburbs to form their own schools and neighborhoods, abandoning the inner city to economic decay.

Such diseased narratives were no less true among Christians who fled cities for the suburbs. While not always explicitly racist on the surface, a diseased theological imagination that worshipped God for wealth and comfort only exacerbated racial and economic segregation. As one urban theologian said, Christians fled the city and took their “household gods” with them.^[6]

Diseased narratives about the inner city continue today and maintain boundaries of segregation. In Indianapolis, the narrative of “safety” has been used by businesses to cover for poor economic performance and justify shutting down or relocating.^[7] While our neighborhood is far from the most violent in our city, the stigma remains. “Haughville Indianapolis Crime” is the top search recommendation for our neighborhood.

As we prepared to move into our neighborhood two years ago, one city planner said to me, “Haughville is where good intentions go to die.” What happens to a neighborhood when the entire city perpetuates these diseased narratives about people and places?

The Movement of People Groups

Cities are places of constant change. Due to several factors, inner-city neighborhoods often fluctuate as old residents move or die and new residents move in. Lower-class neighborhoods may remain as such while inhabited by very different population groups. Our neighborhood of Haughville has been predominantly lower-class since it was formed. Still, over the last century, its residents have included Eastern European immigrants, Appalachian migrants, African Americans, Latinos, and other immigrant populations.

Yet, these neighborhoods are also positioned for economic change and upheaval. Historically Black inner-city neighborhoods are presently subjected to at least three simultaneous movements among people groups.

First, many inner-city neighborhoods are increasingly attracting Latino and other immigrant populations. Unless they have been gentrified, these neighborhoods remain the most affordable for families arriving in our country with few resources and who must work minimum-wage jobs. The arrival of these new people groups creates strong tensions with existing residents, as resources in these neighborhoods were already scarce. Competition, misunderstanding, and outright division between people groups emerge as a result.

Second, many inner-city neighborhoods are being gentrified by (often White) Millennial homebuyers who grew up in the suburbs but are now attracted to the city. While this phenomenon occurs in nearly every city across the country, smaller cities like Indianapolis may see gentrification occur with unique force. Gentrified inner-city neighborhoods in these cities can offer a suburban lifestyle with the novelty of city living at an affordable rate. As one article put it, these neighborhoods can provide “a single-family house on a quiet street that was close enough to downtown that he could walk to a good brewery.”^[8]

Third, many of these same inner-city neighborhoods are experiencing the “flight” of the Black middle class to the suburbs. In other words, the re-emergence of the White middle class in cities is coinciding with the Black middle class's departure from cities for the suburbs.^[9]

There are many reasons for this latter shift, some of which would be inappropriate for me to try to explain here. No doubt, the suburbanization of jobs and preference for the comforts of the suburbs are factors. For many middle-class Black people I know who grew up in the inner city, it is simply too painful to continue living in a place that is associated with so much hurt.

Still, this flight to the suburbs – a benefit for many – creates a kind of economic segregation within the Black community. The gap between the Black lower-class residents who are left behind and the new White gentrifiers is even more significant, with no Black middle class to act as a kind of “buffer” between the two. Add the pressures of new immigrant communities in the mix, and many inner-city neighborhoods are ripe for multi-directional hostility and segregation.

Social Systems

Most of a city’s social systems maintain and perpetuate existing segregation. Consider a city’s schools, which will likely reflect the degree of segregation already present in a city. Here in Indianapolis, the lottery and application systems allow families with means to choose preferred schools outside their neighborhood. Families who do not know how to navigate this system default to neighborhood schools, and school segregation naturally manifests itself as a result.

Housing policies also uphold and exacerbate segregation and economic discrimination. Indiana has some of the weakest tenant laws in the country, meaning that renters do not have some of the basic rights that are afforded to renters in other states, such as the ability to withhold rent if repairs are not made, or the right to a defense attorney in cases of eviction.^[10] As a result, Indianapolis has the second highest eviction rate of any city in the country, second only to New York City.^[11]

To these systems, we might add a city’s planning (transportation, economic development), food deserts, policing and prison system, and so on.

Are churches segregated? Yes. However, churches are not segregated because of their diseased theological narratives alone but also because of the larger social systems in which they find themselves. To the extent that these pressures driving segregation are present in a church’s city, the greater their challenge will be in the work of reconciliation.

Reconsidering Reconciliation

Any realistic approach to reconciliation in our churches must at least include the four pressures I named above that are driving segregation in our cities. Until a church is willing to address reconciliation in their city as well as their congregation, they are destined for ineffective methods that result in frustration, disappointment, and pain. This internal and external reconciliation must take place together, for we cannot help but be formed by and through our surrounding environment.

The theologian and politician Abraham Kuyper brought out this point in his work on sanctification. As Kuyper wisely intuited, God’s work of common grace in a city will reflect upon how a city’s residents are and need to be sanctified:

Progress in sanctification, at least in terms of its form in daily life, most definitely depends on the way of life, customs, and public opinion that are dominant in the environment where the church of Christ functions. Common grace works more strongly and differently in one environment than in another. The form and degree to which sanctification manifests itself will correspond to how this action of common grace occurs in the country, among the people, and in the city or town where the church of Christ functions and where the conversion of believers occurs.^[12]

Applied to my purposes here, then, if God’s common grace has worked on a city so that it remains largely segregated, believers themselves will require more progress in sanctification to work toward true reconciliation in their churches and communities.

Many of our conversations and efforts in reconciliation need to expand in their scope and intentionality in at least six ways. My list below is a starting point for those committed to this work to consider in their personal lives, their families, and the local church bodies in which they participate.

First, our churches need to be willing to do the hard work of understanding the unique pressures driving segregation in their context. This work cannot be rushed, and most church leaders have not been trained in historical and social analysis.^[13] While some congregations may have members trained for this work, most churches will have to turn to voices outside of their congregation to expand their understanding of their context. If a church does not understand the segregation, division, and hostility present in their community, then they are not yet ready for the work of reconciliation.

Second, we need to expand the conversation on reconciliation to acknowledge the complexity of segregated spaces. Too many conference talks have been given with one-size-fits-all solutions toward reconciliation in our churches. Too many theories of reconciliation have been nurtured in the suburbs rather than the complex environment of inner cities. Such theories have been simplistic, idealistic and have given the impression that reconciliation is something a congregation can achieve if you throw enough programs and dollars at the problem.

We long for programmatic, measurable strategies, but reconciliation is not a program. It is a way of being in the world in such a way that justice, equity, and love are the result of a thousand choices we make in our everyday lives.

Third, we need an intentional approach to reconciliation that summons every member of the congregation to reconciling work. No church member can sit back and wait for church leaders to make a few changes and think this will bring about justice, diversity, and reconciliation. Each individual life in the body needs to change. Where we spend our money needs to change. Where we eat needs to change. How we spend our time needs to change. Where we go to school needs to change. Where we live needs to change.

More than that, the latent prejudices of our own heart must be uprooted. We are, in many ways, products of our environment. If our city is segregated, we should expect prejudices in our hearts that at least have been comfortable enough to participate passively in segregated systems. We can only expect something to change if we are willing to change.

Fourth, we need a vision for justice, diversity, and reconciliation that can sustain the challenges found in segregated spaces. Too many churches have attempted the work of reconciliation with a belief that a few minor changes to music and preaching would achieve the desirable result. Such changes are often not only received as an insult to minority members of a congregation, but, when the changes don’t “work,” a congregation is likely to give up and revert to old norms and ministry strategies.

Such a vision must not only be founded on the foundational nature of Christ’s reconciling work (Ephesians 2:19-22), but also a conviction to confront the “rulers and authorities” in this age with the wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10) and a willingness to “make every effort” to grow up into unity in Christ (Ephesians 4:3, 13). Our small changes don’t “work” because they’re wrong but because they are ineffective in a world where the rulers and authorities perpetuate segregation. They cannot go unchallenged.

Fifth, we cannot limit the work of reconciliation to the internal work of the church, but we must broaden our perspective to include the whole life of the church in resistance to existing social systems. Such resistance may consist of forming new, intentional ministries that push back against segregation in a neighborhood. Intentional discipleship might train congregation members on how to participate in community organizations, local government, or their places of employment. Churches might start a new institution that resists segregation and fights the underlying pressures that drive it.

In other words, we must put the work of justice ahead of the goal of reconciliation. Reconciliation without justice is a sham. Justice–true justice–will inevitably result in genuine reconciliation.

Finally, we need to see reconciliation as a work that is bigger than any one church can accomplish on its own. While reconciliation ought to be something every local church should work toward, no one church can change a segregated city alone. Networks of like-hearted congregations across denominations must commit to living out a vision of reconciliation beyond infrequent joint efforts. Such networks must find new, innovative ways for congregations to share their lives with one another.

My efforts here to expand our conversation and efforts toward true reconciliation are imperfect. Still, I hope that renewed attention to the segregation in our cities might give new life to reconciliation efforts in our churches and cities. Indeed, as ambassadors of Christ’s kingdom, we must live as those who belong to a heavenly city but have been sent, for now, to live in earthly ones. As his ambassadors, we carry with us the King’s message, wisdom, and power to bring about his will for the places he has sent us. If we merely focus our reconciling efforts inside the walls of our church buildings, we will surrender the charge of our King and resign our cities to their segregated fates.

May it not be so.

---

^[1] When I use the terms “reconciliation” or “racial reconciliation,” I refer to the biblical demand for unified, just, loving, and equitable relationships between believers of all racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. I use these terms somewhat reluctantly, as I fear the dominant ideas around reconciliation today have made the term more of a novelty – something nice to put on a church website – but not something lived out. Many Christian leaders of color have told me that they believe the “racial reconciliation movement” of the last several decades is now dead on account of the hypocrisy of White churches in the face of racial violence and political idolatry. Often, reconciliation is reduced to both means and ends rather than the result of love and justice lived out among believers. Nevertheless, “reconciliation” is a term that registers in the prevalent Christian mindset, so I hope it is still appropriately applicable here. I prefer “reconciliation” over “racial reconciliation,” as I believe that reconciling work often includes race and class.

^[2] Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law, 195.

^[3] CensusScope, “Segregation: Dissimilarity Indices,” https://www.censusscope.org/us/rank_dissimilarity_white_black.html.

^[4] A slang term for European immigrants meaning dull, lazy, and stupid.

^[5] James J. Divita, Slaves to No One: A History of the Holy Trinity Catholic Community in Indianapolis on the Diamond Jubilee of the Founding of Holy Trinity Parish, 43.

^[6] Robert C. Linthicum, City of God, City of Satan, 33.

^[7] James Briggs, “Indianapolis’ Starbucks problem is a post-COVID problem,” https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/james-briggs/2022/10/20/starbucks-closing-monument-circle-indianapolis/69573799007/.

^[8] Conor Dougherty, “The Next Affordable City is Already Too Expensive,” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/business/economy/spokane-housing-expensive-cities.html.

^[9] Jerusalem Demsas, “What’s Causing Black Flight?,” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/black-families-leaving-cities-suburbs/671331/.

^[10] Ko Lyn Cheang, “Renters in Other States Have Laws to Protect Them ... That’s Not the Case in Indiana.,” https://www.indystar.com/story/news/real-estate/2022/01/06/indiana-renters-rights-no-rent-withholding-repair-and-deduct-law/6250569001/.

^[11] Eviction Lab, “Eviction Rankings,” https://evictionlab.org/rankings/.

^[12] Abraham Kuyper, “Common Grace in Sanctification” in Common Grace Volume 2, 325.

^[13] As a starting point, see Chapters 14-16 in Urban Ministry by Harvie Conn and Manuel Ortiz, Social Analysis for the 21^st Century by Maria Cimperman, and Ethnography as a Pastoral Practice by Mary Clark Moschella.