Old alliances are fraying (Rick Loomis/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
When my father was going through the process of becoming an Elder in the United Methodist Church, he was required to take courses on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. One course involved a presentation on how white people needed to make room for, and amplify the voices of, “people of colour”. My father is an immigrant from China. He, like other immigrant preachers, was confused about who the term “person of colour” referred to, and why a faith founded on the idea that there is “neither Jew nor Greek” is so obsessed with racial divisions.
Who can blame them? The progressive ideology that in recent years has swept through mainstream American Protestantism is often impenetrable to those from non-Western countries.
And yet, it is just such immigrants who are keeping Christianity alive in our secular world — everywhere from France’s Afro-Caribbean megachurches to London’s Black Majority Churches. In America, the number of citizens identifying as Christians has fallen from 90% to 64% in the last 50 years, while immigrants are becoming more influential: more than two thirds of them are Christians.
American progressives are increasingly stoking fears of an incipient “white Christian nationalism” bringing about a Cromwellian theocracy. But white Americans have actually been secularising at a slightly faster rate than other ethnicities. While black Americans have also experienced secularisation, they are still more likely to go to church and pray than the average American. And African immigrants to the US are more religious than American-born black people. The rise of Latino evangelicals in America has also been receiving mainstream coverage.
“Conservative Christians”, the bogeyman for white progressives, are therefore increasingly likely to be people of colour — the very people whose voices progressives apparently want to amplify. Christians of African origin are far more likely to hold conservative views on sexuality, while Latino evangelicals are quickly becoming a Republican bloc.
White conservatives, meanwhile, have a tendency to bemoan the secularisation of the West and the decline of traditional values, while supporting restrictive immigration processes — perhaps not realising that non-Western immigrants are more likely to be socially conservative than American-born citizens, or perhaps because their economic or tribal instincts trump their religious ones. Both progressives and conservatives are therefore mired in contradiction.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeNicely written article. As a conservative, Christian American white male with a Negative 10,000 intersectionality credit identity score, I do agree with the vast majority of this.
It’s clear the Progressives are having a difficult time continuing to sell the decade’s old hoax that American conservatives are racist. This failure makes it harder for privileged progressives to stand in as a proxy for what they describe as “marginalized groups.” They’ve been able to shield themselves from criticism by branding themselves a representative or “Vanguard of the Oppressed”
I completely agree with the author that America needs immigration but needs to be a much better job at requiring some level of integration. I know the Critical Social Justice Warriors like to call America a “Salad Bowl” instead of a Melting Pot but that is unsustainable nonsense. I’m all for a Multiracial America. I’m not all for a “Multicultural America.” No reasonable country tries to marginalize the dominant culture in order to “center” its subcultures. From a basic utility perspective, that’s a recipe for social disorder.
Does that mean subcultures are bad for America. No, not at all. The food, music and many ideas are welcomed. But the idea that communities can come to America (or Europe) and seclude themselves from the general population with marginal integration is a failing proposition. The population doesn’t gain from immigration unless the immigrants are actively engaging with the culture.
You need a National identity to function and Critical Social Justice can’t do that because it’s a global, universalist hivemind ideology. America has a “dominant culture” and it’s not a “White Culture” its a culture of Meritocracy. Vivek Rawaswamy is succeeding because he’s immensely talented with many good ideas. In a Nation heavily influenced by Christ, many Conservatives will value what they view as a non-Christian doing God’s work.
Yes, we need immigration and yes we can lend a hand to people fleeing persecution but integration into the existing culture should be the path to citizenship
Great comment. Interestingly, Ramaswamy is a Hindu who attended a Jesuit high school (which his Hindu parents valued for its high ethical and educational standards).
Non Western countries, if you can get in at all, have a culture of FIFO (fit in or go away).
They don’t welcome diversity, or mass immigration.
They get away with it because the one thing you can never do as a woke is to criticise any non White person, culture or history.
I’m not sure anyone looking at the current political class or corporate ideology in the USA considers meritocracy to be the defining cultural achievement of the country. I used to look at the States in that way but it has let that trait dissolve astonishingly quickly. Great post though.
I’d like to think that Progressivism is a ‘system burp’….because although there are set asides and quotas to keep Asians and whites ‘down’…I still think that ‘cream rises to the top’. Intelligence & fortitude still reap enormous benefits in the USA. It’s just that Progressives want to redistribute the gains. It’s for sure a tug-of-war. What’s interesting to observe is the competition between states; Progressive states if they continue on their path, holding down commerce, high taxes, social control, defunding the police, etc will not do well in both the short and long run. We are observing population shifts as we speak in response to Progressive state lockdowns during the pandemic and subsequently with DEI constraints, and of course ever higher taxes. In New York City, one can observe the decline on a daily basis. This week it’s about removing Founding Father statues….it’s sad to see a great city in free fall.
I don’t think any of the examples you have given make me think this is a system error rather than an error in the system. The population shifts are interesting but I only see it making red states purple and not blue states red/purple. Saying the cream rises to the top doesn’t really cut it when everyone can see the political direction of the country. Are there any politicians who are admirable and is there any way of removing the chaff who are currently leading the country? I am surprised there isn’t more of a seccesionist movement (given the history of the country).
I’m responding to both your comments. You’re correct that the Meritocracy principle has largely dissolved and been replaced by Utopian reparatory and redistribution values. But our economic system and Constitution were always based on unrealized aspirations. We’ve hit many speed bumps throughout history. For instance in the 60s you had a genuine liberal movement for Desegregation that coincided with a vast expansion of the administered welfare state. IMO the expansion created alot of the problems we face today because it created a bureacracy that incentivized public assistance as a natural role of the central planner.
That said, there are some exceptional people coming through the ranks so I’m hopeful we can win back the west through aspirational values that offset the miserable antagonists.
To a foreigner, can you elucidate on who the “exceptional” people are? They aren’t in the news over here, we are fed a diet of Trump, Biden, Pelozi, McConnell, Fetterman, AOC, MTG, Newsom and that republican lady who enjoyed being felt up in public.
I wasn’t exclusively referring to politics. I would consider Republicans like Desantis, Rawaswamy, Senator Hawley and House Rep, Chip Roy pretty exceptional. For the Democrats, I think RFK Jr is very impressive and Jared Polis in Colorado is probably the Democratic Establishment’s best hope.
Conservatives have a massive intellectual advantage right now because Progressives can’t say what they think.
There are secessionist movements in California and Texas. In California, there are movements by the rural north and eastern parts of the state to secede from the state and for the state in its entirety to secede from the US. It’s quite a mess out there. The MSM doesn’t give it much coverage because, again, they’re controlled by globalist corporate overlords. They have easier ways to generate interest and make money, so why would they shoot themselves in the foot? Further, it’s difficult to overestimate the psychological impact of the American Civil War, even a century and a half later. It remains the bloodiest conflict in American history, as casualty totals (adding both sides of course) are slightly greater than casualties in WWII and WWI combined. It was also the only significant conflict fought on American soil that resulted in substantial destruction and the deaths of significant numbers of civilians. Any conflict fought with modern weapons would undoubtedly be much worse, and would very likely draw foreign interference and maybe global war. It will take a very high bar for any state to consider secession, probably a direct confrontation over an issue where a state is profoundly and overwhelmingly against a federal statute and refuses to abide by it. That already happens, btw, as seen with so called sanctuary cities or Florida and Texas operating de facto immigration policy by arresting illegals and bussing them to other states. There’s actually very little the federal government can do about that other than wag their finger and threaten to withhold federal funding, which they’ve never done for fear of triggering a backlash. It’s in everybody’s interests to just look the other way. For an actual secession crisis, though, the disagreement would have to be more profound than this, more existential, and the federal government would have to be willing, or at least threaten, the use of military force, which could, among other things, divide the military. A substantial portion of the American military is in the form of national guards and reservists who have historically been mostly used by the governors of the states for disaster relief and riot suppression. In peacetime, they are under the authority of the governor of their state, but can be called up in time of war. If a call were made on the national guards to take up arms against fellow Americans, a substantial number would very likely remain loyal to their state governors, who might sympathize with the secessionists, or wish to remain neutral, as happened during the first Civil War. The proximate cause of the civil war was the government of South Carolina bombarding and capturing a federal fort, Fort Sumter. In response, Lincoln called for states to send troops. Most of the southern states refused and joined the Confederacy instead. Kentucky and Missouri refused and remained neutral throughout the conflict though volunteers fought for both sides. Beyond that, the military itself is something of an independent creature these days and depending on the scenario and the popularity or lack thereof of the current government might well stage a coup and try to find some compromise path forward rather than follow an arguably suicidal course of action. There are a number of off ramps available to prevent actual secession/war and ample opportunities to take them. . The federal and state governments can mostly ignore one another on most issues. The federal government can refrain from escalating any disagreement to a military level. The military itself can act as a check against stupidity on the part of leadership. There are less well known alternatives as well such as states calling a new constitutional convention which might be used if the crisis was particularly dire and the disagreement fundamental, but none of the issues dividing us these days is as profound as slavery. It would take a lot of colossally bad decisions piled on top of one another to get to the point of actual shooting. It’s very unlikely, but it’s not entirely impossible, and ten years ago I would have said it was impossible. Who knows, ten years from now we may be discussing it as a serious issue.
I like some of what you have said. I consider myself a really irritated progressive. As a feminist, I see gender ideology as a threat to hard won women’s rights. Plus I find the constant barrage of if you are white, your are a white supremacist. As a white woman, it makes me furious. (And I know that white men get it worse than women.) Finally, I agree that a melting pot is a better metaphor. When immigrants come to America from very different cultures, no one expects them to abandon their religion or cultures. What I expect is that they adhere with the ideals of this country and how our Founding Fathers used them in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Freedoms given to us in the Bill of Rights. Our Republic that gives us a say in how our government works for us (kinda rocky right now). These should be the core values of our country, and .I would hope that immigrants believe in our values.
Great comment. 100%
Forgive me for saying, but based on what you wrote, you don’t sound much like a progressive by modern standards, and what you wrote probably would not be well received in progressive circles. You sound like another frustrated American looking for some alternative to the insanity of the far left and the globalist dreamers. Whatever you were before, it seems we’re all being painted as radicals these days. Welcome to the club.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse. It’s not easy at all for immigrants (esp of a very different background) to ‘adhere to/believe in’ new values. Values aren’t so much first principles formulation as inherited instinct. American traditional values weren’t just thought up, but were codified by ppl already imbued with both Protestant European Enlightenment values and older Brit traditions of law and governance. The Enlightenment ones came out of and probably rely on constant material improvement, those plus the older ones also need to have a historical resonance with most of the pop. America could demand new immigrants integrate when there weren’t so many of them, they weren’t so different, the reward was participation in a successful and confident society, the existing population was predominantly northern European origin (ie there was a clear mainstream culture). None of these conditions still exist. Btw I don’t think western Europe is looking much better.
Absolutely agree. There should be required a basic level of integration in terms of English proficiency and an understanding and acceptance of fundamental Western values in order to become a citizen.
Immigrants should be allowed to practice their faith as long as it does not run counter to said values. FGM is NOT acceptable. Forced marriage is not acceptable.
As regards cuisine, music, festivals, clothing tolerance should be practiced but a full face veil is not OK. There is a reason criminals cover their faces. Western values require that we can see who we are talking to.
More effort should be made by immigrants to adapt to these behaviours just as we would have to adapt in countries where we are living. I would never walk around in scanty clothing in the Muslim world nor drink alcohol or eat pork in public. It is simply a matter of respect and good manners.
Here the numbers attending the Church have fallen badly over the years. But in our area the chapels are virtually full and the Catholic church is doing very well.
It seems that there is a backlash in the area against the mainstream Church. As the article says, the ‘normal’ Church is busying itself with trendy ideas and discussions about pronouns, with trying to attract ‘young’ people, with all kinds of things – except religion. Our bishop has just retired after months of ‘sick’ leave – she was unable to attend meetings without spitting fire at the Tories.
I have said this before (about the NHS) but I will repeat it. The organisations have become cliques which serve themselves before their customers. They have forgotten about those they are there to serve. To a certain extent, the police force is the same – there the fast-track graduates get into the middle management and forget about the role of the police in the community.
It sounds as if you may live in the diocese of St David’s. I am surprised to hear that the chapels there are virtually full, as the one which my forefathers helped build in the 1830s was recently sold to the Egyptian Coptic Church, after its congregation dwindled to single figures and reluctantly dissolved itself.
Yep. Correct.
According to the DT she was ‘off sick’ for TWO years.
Migraine apparently!
They had to say something, didn’t they?
Presumably she was on FULL pay for those two years?
Of course.
I imagine ‘Jesus’ will have something to say about that, when the time comes.
I’ll let you know.
Watch the pro-immigration progressives fight with the immigrant social conservatives… popcorn time.
Excellent. But:
“If progressive Christian churches align themselves more closely to the values of secular society than to religious ones, they will cease to exist.”
CORRECTION: “AS progressive Christian churches align themselves more closely to the values of secular society than to religious ones, they ARE CEASING to exist.”
Not a hypothetical. And the trend has been obvious for decades. The decline is not among orthodox churches. Just the opposite: Churches preaching and living the gospel are doing quite well.
Especially outside the West: Christianity is booming in the non-Western world.
Today’s progressivism, in all its manifestations, is a slow-motion death cult.
Which begs the n question – why don’t the leaders of the woke churches see how they’re failing and either change course or get out of the way?
When you are on the One True Path, you don’t change course. You rejoice as the unbelievers fall away.
It’s ironic saying the liberals think they’re on the One True Path. I would say they don’t believe there is a One True Path. They don’t believe they are offering something unique, hence if a potential believer finds his ‘spiritual’ fix elsewhere, no problem.
If immigrants are to be let in then it should only be to fill gaps in the labour market. They should, furthermore, be tested to ensure they have view’s compatible with the secular mainstream even if that results in bias towards North European origins.
When I have one of my outbreaks of churchgoing, it is just me and the old black ladies, as I often go to the CofE. It is rare to see another white person. Catholic churches are fuller but it is still mainly migrants from non-English backgrounds.
I agree. I went to a Catholic Church service in Central Leeds recently and it was like the UN, but in a good, functioning way.
And nothing like the trendy, multicultural sticking plaster of the progressive Left (ex-Lefty myself).
Yes, many RC churches would be almost empty without the Poles.
A friend who summers in Portland, Maine says her Catholic Church was filled with black Africans – their children ‘beautifully dressed’ for Sunday services.
The author makes some valid point, but more immigration is the NOT the answer. Mass immigration has been an absolute disaster for the West.
“Folx.” I haven’t heard that one before. Inclusive language has just jumped the shark.
In the south east the only Protestant churches I see that are succeeding are the Korean churches or those for African immigrants. The only Catholic churches I see succeeding are for Romanians. The only ‘English churches’ anywhere near me that are growing are heterodox in some manner like the Swedenborgians. It’s been fascinating to watch. If there is any hope for the religious right, it must lie in the proles from overseas.
Yep, that’s about the size of it. He could write a longer and uglier article about the ‘why’ behind a lot of the progressive contradictions. The so-called ‘contradictions’ of conservatives are actually greatly exaggerated by the media. There are not enough white nationalists to generate any consistent political support, even in places where one might assume they would carry some weight. In my 90% white rural Kentucky county, there was a George Floyd protest march. They did not get attacked nor did it start a violent confrontation with the white supremacists one would assume are fairly common around here. They marched around the court square in our dinky little town quite peacefully. Some people sneered, some cheered, but most people just went about their business. I think there was a pro-police rally a few days later but it was similarly uninteresting. Conservatives are by and large not consciously racist but understandably resent being told that they are by flippant teenagers. Many conservatives are not anti-immigration per se. Some certainly are, but by and large, most conservatives would be satisfied with a controlled, closed border and a properly funded ICE that can screen out criminals and terrorists while favoring the young, the hardworking, and the better educated to the extent possible, alongside some recognition that those who came here illegally, regardless of intent, did break the law and as such should face some consequence, as respect for the law is an important part of being an American. Progressive contradictions are, on the other hand, by and large a product of the fact that the Democratic party is by and large controlled by establishment globalists who only see economic bottom lines. Racism, gay rights, trans-rights, and on down the line are mostly distractions, side shows meant to get votes, either by shallow emotional appeals that have no bearing on any actual policy, or by serving as excuses for handouts to activist groups or even directly to voters. They don’t really believe in multiculturalism. They want the entire world to adopt their own bland secularized culture because that makes it easy for them to do business anywhere. They want open borders because that keeps power in the hands of tycoons and international finance rather than workers. They decry nationalism because that results in closed borders and national standards that interfere with their ability to run the world through international finance and shift production to lowest cost countries with terrible wages and zero environmental protections. They promote diversity of meaningless superficial traits like race, sexual preference, etc. but harshly reject the most important aspects of diversity, that is diversity of opinion, of values, and of thought. Almost everything the Democratic establishment pushes can be traced back to the failing dreams of globalist utopia coming from the end of the Cold War and the 90’s. The world is waking up to the fact that history has moved on, but powerful men will cling to old dreams as long as they can. The political realignment in America is ongoing, but once it finishes, one or both parties will look unrecognizable from what they were in 2015.
Interesting and insightful article.
I wonder, though, if all of these grades of traditional religiosity are not equally subject to a force external to and utlimately greater than any of them individually or all of them collectively. And that irresistible force is a relentlessly creeping secularization or despiritualization in the developed cultures to which the immigrant populations are gravitating. How long can the rigors of religious conviction and dedication hold out against secularism’s pressures to conform, or the allure of its destigmatized sexuality, entertainments, and so on? Granted, many of the immigrants may hold to more-conservative beliefs, but will their children?
I rather like the idea of a “Cromwellian theocracy”. Apart from the beginnings of liberalism again, it gets me out of buying Christmas presents this year.
This is the second great article from Unherd today. Thanks very much. Very good to be reminded that there are plenty of small-c conservative minded folks like me out there and that they don’t necessarily have to look like me either. Thanks again.
What is so ironic is that what is described as ‘progressive’ and ‘Liberal’ theology is neither; rather it is the resurrection and rehashing of centuries old heresies and a paradoxically Marxist style doctrinaire Libertarianism which brooks no opposition. Their principle characteristics are a lack of genuine charity and a Humpty Dumpty approach to language. All in all a truly malevolent spirit has entered the Church in the West and is increasingly bold in its presentation of lies and evil. And I’m just an ordinary Anglican!
Not sure how this applies to the UK. Here religion is not linked to conservativism in any form. So the anti-woke lobby has little in the way of religious affiliation – in fact Christianity is more likely to be seen as part of the problem – woke vicar’s and all that. (After all Jesus did seem a bit too concerned with those at the bottom rather than the aspirational – so UK conservatives have a point.) In any case contemporary conservativism in this country is defined almost exclusively in terms of what it doesn’t like rather than what it likes.
Please, ‘Diversity, Inclusion and Equity’ – much better acronym!
Sorry, Division, Inequality, and Exclusion please