Summary: The church has been complicit in the creation of a racial hierarchy.
Last night I finished up a discussion group for the Color of Compromise. I was not particularly interested in re-reading the book because I have read/listened to it two previous times and watched the video series twice. But the Color of Compromise is exactly the type of book that brings about a shared story of the history of the United States so that there can be a place for Christians of different racial groups to come together for real discussion and future work.
This discussion group was the fourth round of small groups that I have helped lead or participated in that explicitly focused on racial issues at my church. And one of the significant confirmations of participating in these groups is how important it is to have a shared understanding of history. That does not mean that everyone has to believe the same things on all policy or theology or historical understandings, but it does mean that a shared basic shape of the history of the US and the role that race has played in that history is important for moving forward. Color of Compromise is a basic introduction to the history of race in the US. I have read a lot of history around race, and there is very little that is controversial here.
That being said, one of the consistent critiques that I have heard about Color of Compromise is that its history is not very good. Generally, when I have asked for examples, there are two main threads that people are talking about. One is that there is a frustration that Tisby does not spend more time talking about the role of white abolitionists or those that opposed segregation. And generally, my response is that this is not a history of abolition or ending segregation. This is a history of the church’s complicity in racism, and their complaint isn’t with Tisby’s history but the book’s focus that he actually wrote. The second area where people have complained about the historical work is from people who want more clear heroes and villains in their history and who are offended that Tisby is pointing out that some of our heroes were not very heroic regarding race. So again, this tends to be a problem with people’s understanding of the methodology of history and their theological anthropology.
The current historical methodology is not designed to create heroes. If you go back two hundred years, some early historians were trying to develop heroes and a shared ‘mythology’ (using it in the sense of a shared creation/origin story). For example, the ‘myth’ of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree arose about 10 years after Washington’s death in the fifth edition of a biography of Washington by Locke Weems. Weemes was not trying to tell a historically accurate story that he got wrong; he was trying to illustrate the importance of virtue. By 1835, PT Barnum purchased an elderly slave woman and advertised her as Washington’s nanny, and she told the cherry tree story as one of her acts. By 1854, the story was adapted to one of McGuffey’s Readers to teach reading. But it was a ‘myth,’ not in the sense of false story (although there is no historical evidence of it actually happening), but in the sense of a shared story of the virtue of our founding father, which allows us as US citizens to point to the story for a sense of identity and meaning.







