When Unity Fails to Bring Liberation
A look of at the power dynamics of unity and what needs to change.
**Note: This is a generalized discussion on one specific aspect of white liberal churches. There are a lot more factors that also need to be discussed. However, this is an issue that many have expressed within these denominations.**
A while ago, Ryan Burge posted an image of graphs that highlighted the way that that “majority white ‘major’ Protestant denomination” voted in the last five presidential elections. Of the seven listed, every denomination had shifted in their presidential votes toward the Republican party since the 2008 election. Further, all but two, the Episcopel Church and the American Baptist, had over 50% of their members vote for Trump in 2024. Considering this, we need to be asking the question, are white denominations known for progressive theology failing to create liberative movements and what is the first step to creating change if they are?
Before getting too far into the discussion, there are a few things to consider. First, nearly every denomination dipped in their support for the Republican party in 2020, so it hasn’t been a consistent movement toward the right. Second, the 2024 election had a lot of external factors that may have led to more people choosing to withhold their vote instead of voting for a candidate opposing Trump. Many felt that factors like the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the Democratic party's shift to the right gave them no valid candidate to whom they could vote.1 Third, there are constantly people leaving the Church as they become more progressive and may no longer identify with their denomination.
With all of that said, even though those issues may have affected votes coming from denominational, there is still a trend toward members of these denominations supporting the Republican candidate while the Republican party has continuously and intentionally pushed more authoritarian, far-right policies with Trump as the figurehead. So, while there may be people leaving denominations or finding that they do not identify with any candidate, that still doesn’t account for why there isn’t a growing rejection of authoritarianism that intentionally demonizes immigrants, queer people (especially trans people), and anyone that isn’t a white person in the denominations that claim to be working for liberation.
Why are these Denominations Failing to Create Liberation?
**Note: I’m going to be specifically addressing the Disciple of Christ and United Church of Christ in this next section as it is based on my observations and experiences with the two denominations. That does not mean that my observations aren’t applicable to others, but I also do not want to speak to something that I am ignorant about.**
Within the DoC and UCC, both denominations emphasize unity as a basis for their existence. They choose to exist in a space that often has disagreements on theology and other topics. This focus on unity is amicable and something that is needed since Christianity has a long history of strife between groups. However, it is this focus on unity that has also allowed these two denominations to become a safe haven for harm.
The truth of the matter is that these churches have a unique position of having progressive and inclusive theology at the higher levels of the denomination and could be using that to create momentum for liberation in the world. However, their dedication to not force their individual congregations to agree with them has also potentially led them to overcompensate to the point where they struggle to lead their members toward universal liberation. While they could be the denominations pushing for solidarity with the most marginalized in our world, they restrict themselves by tying themselves to those who refuse to see the Imago Dei in all humanity.
In reality, they have failed because they have yet to prioritize a unity that requires a relinquishing of power to bring liberation for the most marginalized.
Unity at the Expense of Whom?
The DoC and UCC’s efforts for unity are not the thing that I am critiquing per se. The issue is that unity without consideration of social power dynamics will generally lead to harm.
These denominations do not exist in a world free of cultural and societal power dynamics. If there is one conservative congregation and one liberal congregation, they do not equal each other out. The conservative congregation still holds the most social power because of its place in our culture. These conservative congregations still uphold, preach, and act in ways that bring harm to the marginalized in the world. The issue is that when we prioritize unity between the churches it is easy to deprioritized harm reduction.
For instance, there are churches in both the DoC and UCC that still do not accept and affirm queer people in their congregations, but the denominations still choose unity with these congregations, which allows the continuation of harm against 2SLGBTQIA+ people. While non-affirming churches may not want to intentionally harm queer people and may not go out of their way to make the lives of others more difficult, the unfortunate truth is maintaining unaffirming theology and teaching still causes psychological harm to queer people at a minimum and enables unaffirming individuals to act in harmful ways to others outside the church walls and feel justified by their theology.
Giving Up Harm Reduction
In a perfect world, we would not have to give up unity for harm reduction. Unfortunately, there are groups of people not willing to give up their positions of societal power to seek harm reduction for the marginalized in our world. And this is where denominations like the UCC and DoC have failed; they have allowed unity with harmful power structures, theology, and unjust politics to hold back their efforts for harm reduction.
Maintaining “unity” with those who cause harm means the organization is still a place where harm is safe. Harm reduction requires boundaries for unity in order to ensure that harm is reduced or stopped. However, by asking queer people to coexist in spaces with people who participate in their harm, they are putting the burden of the relationship on the marginalized group instead of insisting the culturally dominant group take up the burden.
Unity requires the dominant group, not the marginalized, to give up something up
Unity requires all to come to terms with their responsibility to each group they are in connection with and that responsibility does often mean giving up something for unity and living with boundaries. However, that which is given up is not always equal. In most spaces, the dominant group asks the non-dominant group to give up something to conform to the dominant group to have “unity.” Unfortunately, that is unity through hierarchy, not equality.
One of the clearest ways that this is seen in church denominations is the way that the Open and Affirming or equivalent process takes place. When a church decides they want to go through the process of being known as being Open and Affirming, they go through education and training, then ultimately have a vote on their commitment to affirm and welcome queer people. And while this process exists to ensure that these congregations are safe spaces, the truth is it is still a process of asking those with socio-cultural power whether they will allow someone else at the top of their hierarchy with them. It can be an incredibly dehumanizing experience for a queer person in that space.
Real unity only occurs when power is taken into consideration and subverted in a way that centers equality. This means that the burden of unity should be on those with power more than those who are marginalized. And this is where our denomination have often failed. By choosing to allow harmful theology, with its connection to cultural power, we have chosen to not prioritize harm reduction among the most marginalized
Liberation Requires Solidarity. Solidarity Requires Giving Up Power.
One of the greatest reasons that we have failed to create liberative movements in white churches is because we have not yet acknowledged that unity requires change in those with power, not mere acceptance of others into our spaces. A reason white supremacy and the rise in fascism has been so successful in recent years is because those who benefit from power dynamics have grown tired of being told to give up their position in the dominant culture (i.e. white comfort has won out). But this is exactly where the white denominations in the above photo can have the greatest impact.
If the goal is unity that brings forth collective liberation and our churches are filled with members of the dominant culture, it is our job to maintain the work of giving up our power and confronting white comfort.
Many churches are starting to wake up to this reality and make individual efforts to stand in solidarity. For example, every congregation that chooses to be a sanctuary for immigrants in the US and risk arrest and loss of their nonprofit status are choosing to stand in solidarity. But we need more of this and have it on a larger scale. We cannot allow our comfort as a member of the dominant group and the fact that we are not facing violence and harm become the reason harm grows among us.
If white denominations wish to prioritize unity, they will need to focus on the way that unity in liberatory movements require those with power to change. It will require prioritizing harm reduction for the marginalized and those with power choosing to give up that power and work in solidarity.
A liberative future requires a unity that challenges power, not conforms to power.