For 39 years, whenever I applied for a church position, an intellectually inferior, academically incompetent, or spiritually bankrupt person with “blue eyes” was hired — and perhaps lasted six months! Once I told an interfaith gathering that, when I cross the street at Yonge & Bloor, folks don’t see my clerical collar, just another bloody Paki. They responded with nervous laughter, then silence. I taught a course on racism at Harvard with the great Harvey Cox . . . but still couldn’t get hired in Canadian churches. Tools of ecclesiastical rejection are so polished that one suspects divine intervention. Why are ‘good’ Christians so irredeemably more racist than their cousins outside the church? Incidentally, Jesus, the Palestinian, didn’t have blue eyes.

Ouch!

My perspective is that of one who worked in the church for 40+ years, and is now on the outside, looking (occasionally) in. From that point of view, I honestly don’t believe church folk are more racist than their secular cousins. Sadly, they aren’t any less racist, either.

The difference is the way racism gets expressed.

From most pulpits, there is strong condemnation of racism in all its forms. The message that sends to the pews is that, officially, racism won’t be accepted here. I’m sure that, in the sealed rooms where search committees reject your leadership, no one actually says “we don’t want a bloody Paki (your words) for a minister”. Such overt racism would be shocking to other members; after all, whatever else they may be, church folks strive to be “nice”. But when it’s time to actually raise their hands and vote between you and a pretty, thirty-something woman with blond hair and blue eyes, well, you know how it goes. Within the church, “talking racist” is not acceptable — so the practice goes underground, surfacing only covertly.

These days I notice a real difference in secular groups I’m part of. Fairly often, I hear racial jokes, banter and teasing; these comments are generally mild, and sometimes, among close friends, genuinely affectionate. At first I found this shocking; how could people who like or even love each other banter so freely about racial background, often playing into, and with, some of the worst stereotypes? How could they laugh about stuff that, inside the church, would have been considered appalling? Then off they go, drink a few beers together, and seem closer than ever?

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not endorsing racist behaviour, nor arguing that overt racism is necessarily better than the subtler, covert variety. I do wonder, however, whether the racial suspicion that abides deep within many people isn’t better expressed as gentle banter, rather than as sneaky, backroom decisions.

Since leaving the church, I’ve discovered that, on most matters, the “great unwashed” are more likely to attack head-on, rather than behind your back.

At least when someone tries to stab you in the chest, you have hope of defending yourself. When you get stabbed in the back, you don’t see it coming until you’re bleeding. So if the church doesn’t want your considerable talents, follow the advice of the brown-eyed Jesus: shake the dust off your feet and move on.

Send your questions to star.ethics@yahoo.ca